You may be interested in past posts on this topic:

• What it means to post a good answer in /r/AskHistorians
  ^(06 Aug 2013 | 257 comments)
  ^(/u/caffarelli details Wikipedia's capabilities and problems in relation to other available sources.)

• What are the best (and worst) Wikipedia articles in your subject area?
  ^(13 Jun 2014 | 53 comments)
  ^(Over 10 flaired users discuss various the foibles of their field's representation on that site.)

• When is a Wikipedia article 'reliable'?
  ^(02 May 2015 | 16 comments)
  ^In ^(this answer)^(, /u/tabascun gives an overview of the pros and cons of citing Wikipedia articles on various fields.)
  ^In ^(this answer)^(, /u/Searocksandtrees links to related posts.)

For followup questions, use username mentions in this thread to direct questions to specific commenters.

It's like any other encyclopedia. It's a fantastic resource for getting an idea of whatever subject you're reading about, but not something you can cite. You should never base your research on Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia).

But when you are investigating something and you need to find a place to start, you can go to Wikipedia and find out. It'll give you basic facts, and background info, which is very useful. It won't give you what you need for any sort of scholarly conversation. What it will do is give you enough knowledge about your subject to know where to start looking next and what questions you can ask next.

What it won't do is serve as an authoritative source worth citing. It's an overview, not a source.

IMHO, the rules haven't changed. Don't cite it as a reference if you want to stake your reputation on something.

That said, Wiki is usually quite accurate, so feel free to use it to get a reasonable grounding and give you ideas on what you want to actually look up. You'll find the footnotes at the bottom to be good references as well. Of course, the references may or may not be good, you will still need to evaluate them.